Introduction The questions…. Did Rizal die anti-Catholic, propagandist and mason or did he denounce his membership before his execution? Is his retraction something he willfully did or something that he was forced to do in complacency to his old professors? Is the retraction document genuine or not? Will the image of Rizal as a hero change if he made the retraction letter? are some of the critical questions posed by historians, clergy and other interested individuals regarding the subject of controversy which is the Retraction letter of Dr. Jose Rizal. The Retraction means that Rizal withdrew his membership in the masonry and all his critics against the Catholic church All about the Note RIZAL'S RETRACTION: A Note on the Debate ● Written by Eugene Hessel ●Presbyterian minister, seminary professor, and missionary in the Philippines (1947-1969). He was a graduate of the San Francisco Theological Seminary. He died in 2007 in Pasadena, California. RIZAL'S RETRACTION: A Note on the Debate RIZAL'S RETRACTION: A Note on the Debate Content of Rizal’s Retraction Letter Retraction Letter in Spanish Me declaro catolica y en esta Religion en que naci y me eduque quiero vivir y morir. Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, inpresos y conducta ha habido contrario a mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia Catolica. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me somento a cuanto ella manda. Abomino de la Masonaria, como enigma que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la Iglesia. Puede el Prelado Diocesano, como Autoridad Superior Eclesiastica hacer publica esta manifastacion espontanea mia para reparar el escandalo que mis actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los hombers me perdonen. Retraction Letter in English I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me. Matter of Handwriting • the slant of the letters in the standard writings gives averages several points higher than the average yielded by the Retraction Document, and perhaps more significantly, the most slanted letters are to be found in the Document; Matter of Handwriting • there are significant variations in the way individual letters are formed; • with reference to the signature, Pascual notes no less than seven differences, one of the most significant being indications of “stops” which, says the critic, are most naturally explained by the fact that a forger might stop at certain points to determine what form to make next; Matter of Handwriting • there are marked similarities in several respects between the body of the Retraction and the writing of all three signers, i.e. Rizal and the two witnesses, thus serving to point to Pascual's conclusion that this is a “oneman document." Principles of Textual Criticism • A second prong directed against the authenticity of the document itself is based on the principles of textual criticism. Several critics, beginning so far as I know with Pascual, have noted differences between the text of the document found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father Balaguer." Since this kind of criticism is related to my work in Biblical studies, I am now engaged in a major textual study of my own which consists first of all in gathering together all available forms of the text. To date, it is clear from my own studies that at least from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the text with significant differences. The one form is represented by the Document discovered in 1935 and certain other early records of the Retraction. Two phrases in particular are to be noted: in line 6, “Iglesia Catolica,” and in line 10 “la Iglesia.” Confession of the Forger • an interview with a certain Antonio K. Abad who tells how on August 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija (when Abad was fifteen) a certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by the Friars earlier that same year to make several copies of a retraction document. This same Roque had been previously employed by Colonel Funston to forge the signature of the revolutionary General Lacuna on the document which led to the capture of Aguinaldo. Runes also includes a letter (lated November 10, 1936 from Lorenzo Ador Dionisio, former provincial secretary of Nueva Ecija, who was also present when Roque told his story and confirms it. Raging Controversy On 3 September 1911, a monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the intersection of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive – North Diversion Road. From that time on until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was officially celebrated every 26 August. It is not clear why the 1911 monument was erected there. It could not have been to mark the site of Apolonio Samson’s house in barrio Kangkong; Katipuneros marked that site on Kaingin Road, between Balintawak and San Francisco del Monte Avenue. Raging Controversy Neither could the 1911 monument have been erected to mark the site of the first armed encounter which, incidentally, the Katipuneros fought and won. A contemporary inapt of 1896 shows that the August battle between the Katipunan rebels and the Spanish forces led by Lt. Ros of the Civil Guards took place at Sitio Banlat, North of Pasong Tamo Road far from Balintawak. The site has its own marker. It is quite clear that first, eyewitnesses cited Balintawak as the better-known reference point for a larger area. Second, while Katipunan may have been massing in Kangkong, the revolution was formally launched elsewhere. Moreover, eyewitnesses and therefore historians, disagreed on the site and date of the Cry. Raging Controversy But the issue did not rest there. In 1970, the historian Pedro A. Gagelonia pointed out: The controversy among historians continues to the present day. The “Cry of Pugad Lawin” (August 23, 1896) cannot be accepted as historically accurate. It lacks positive documentation and supporting evidence from the witness. The testimony of only one eyewitness (Dr. Pio Valenzuela) is not enough to authenticate and verify a controversial issue in history. Historians and their living participants, not politicians and their sycophants, should settle this controversy. Conflicting Accounts Pio Valenzuela had several versions of the Cry. Only after they are compared and reconciled with the other accounts will it be possible to determine what really happened. Was there a meeting at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896, after the meeting at Apolonio Samson’s residence in Hong Kong? Where were the cedulas torn, at Kangkong or Pugad Lawin? In September 1896, Valenzuela stated before the Olive Court, which was charged with investigating persons involved in the rebellion, only that Katipunan meetings took place from Sunday to Tuesday or 23 to 25 August at Balintawak. Conflicting Accounts Pio Valenzuela ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Filipino physician and a major figure during the Philippine Revolution against Spanish colonizers, was born in Polo, Bulacan (present day Valenzuela City). He secretly established Katipunan branches in many areas in Morong (now Rizal province) and Bulacan. It was Dr. Valenzuela who was commissioned by Bonifacio to talk to Dr. Jose Rizal, who was deported to Dapitan in Zamboanga, about the founding of the Katipunan and its plan to rise against the Spanish authorities. He left for Dapitan on June 15, 1896. He died on April 6, 1956 at the age of 86. In 1963, the town of Polo was renamed Valenzuela in his honor. The municipality became a city in 1998. Determining the Date The official stand of NHI is that the Cry took place on 23 August 1896. That date, however, is debatable. The later accounts of Pio Valenzuela and Guillermo Masangkay on the tearing of cedulas on 23 August are basically in agreement, but conflict with each other on the location. Valenzuela points to the house of Juan Ramos in Pugad Lawin, while Masangkay refers to Apolonio Samson’s in Kangkong. Masangkay’s final statement has more weight as it was corroborated by many eyewitnesses who were photographed in 1917, when the earliest 23 August marker was installed. Valenzuela’s date (23 August ) in his memoirs conflict With 1928 and 1930 photographs of the surveys with several Katipunan officers, published in La Opinion, which claim that the Cry took place on the 24th. The Turning Point What occurred during those last days of August 1896? Eyewitness accounts mention captures, escapes, recaptures, killings of Katipunan members; the interrogation of Chinese spies; the arrival of arms in Meycauyan, Bulacan; the debate with Teodoro Plata and others; the decision to go war; the shouting of slogan; tearing of cedulas; the sending of letters presidents of Sanggunian and balangay councils; the arrival of civil guard; the loss of Katipunan funds during the skirmish. All these events, and many others, constitute the beginning of nationwide revolution. The Cry, however, must be defined as that turning point when the Filipinos finally rejected Spanish colonial dominion over the Philippine Islands, by formally constituting their cwn national government, and by investing a set of leaders with authority to initiate and guide the revolution towards the establishment of a sovereign nation. Where did this take place? The introduction to the original Tagalog text of the Biyak na Bato Constitution states: Ang paghiwalay ng Filipinas sa kahariang España sa patatag ng isang bayang may sariling pamamahala’t kapangyarihan na pangangalang “Republika ng Filipinas” ay siyang layong inadhika niyaring Paghihimagsik na kasalukuyan, simula pa ng ika- 24 ng Agosto ng taong 1896… The Spanish Text also states: The separation of the Philippines from the Spanish Monarchy, constituting an independent state and with a proper sovereign government, named the Republic of the Philippines, was the end pursued by the revolution through the present hostilities, initiated on 24 August 1896… These lines – in a legal document at that – are persuasive proof that insofar as the leaders of the revolution are concerned, revolution began on 24 August 1896. The document was written only one and a half years after the event and signed by over 50 Katipunan members, among them Emilio Aguinaldo, Artemio Ricarte and Valentin Diaz. Emilio Aguinaldo’s memoirs, Mga Gunita ng Himagsikan (1964), refer to two letters from Andres Bonifacio dated 22 and 24 August. They pinpoint the date and place of the crucial Cry meeting when the decision to attack Manila was made. The above facts render unacceptable the official stand that the turning point of the revolution was the tearing of cedulas in the “Cry of Pugad Lawin” on 23 August 1896, on the Juan Ramos’s house in “Pugad Lawin” Bahay Toro, Kalookan. The events of 17-26 August 1896 occurred closer to Balintawak than to Kalookan. Traditionally, people referred to the “Cry of Balintawak” since that barrio was a better-known reference point than Banlat. In any case, “Pugad Lawin ‘’ is not historiographically verifiable outside of the statements of Pio Valenzuela in the 1930s and after. In Philippine Historical Association round-table discussion in February this year, a great granddaughter of Tandang Sora protested the use of toponym “Pugad Lawin” which, she said, referred to a hawk’s nest on top of a tall Sampaloc tree at Gulod, the highest elevated area near Balintawak. This certainly negates the NHI’s premise that “Pugad Lawin ‘’ is on Seminary Road in Project 8. What we should celebrate is the establishment of a revolutionary or the facto government that was republican in aspiration, the designation of Bonifacio as the Kataastaasang Pangulo (Supreme President), the election of the members of his cabinet ministers and Singgunian and Balangay heads which authorized these moves met in Tandang Sora’s barn n-ar Pasong Tamo Road, in sitio Gulod, barrio Banlat then under the jurisdiction of the municipality of Kalookan. This took place at around noon of Monday, 24 August 1896. It is clear that the so-called Cry of Pugad Lawin of 23 August is an imposition and erroneous interpretation, contrary to indisputable and numerous historical facts. The centennial of the Cry of Balintawak should be celebrated on 24 August 1996 at the site of the barn and house of Tandang Sora in Gulod, now barangay Banlat, Quezon City. That was when and where the Filipino nation state was born.
